>>> I disagree. @CommitAfter never claimed to implement nested
transactions, so, if someone expects it with @CommitAfter, they're wrong,
not @CommitAfter. I agree that its documentation should be more explicit.
<<<
We had this conversation in 2008 already, if I remember correctly. Same
problem, same question. The problem is that this is so easy to run into
such a bug. And you can consider it as being a broken feature. I am quite
sure if we check all of our projects there should be at least one of us
having this problem introduced just by accident (I did). I just wanted to
store a message in the system using it inside an administration service
doing something else too. So this is simple to run into it.
So lets solve this once and for all and look into the code:
current version:
public void advise(final MethodInvocation invocation)
{
final EntityTransaction transaction = getTransaction();
if (transaction != null && !transaction.isActive())
{
transaction.begin();
}
try
{
invocation.proceed();
} catch (final RuntimeException e)
{
if (transaction != null && transaction.isActive())
{
rollbackTransaction(transaction);
}
throw e;
}
// Success or checked exception:
if (transaction != null && transaction.isActive())
{
transaction.commit();
}
}
New version:
public void advise(final MethodInvocation invocation)
{
final EntityTransaction transaction = getTransaction();
boolean isNested = false; //<-- Change
if (transaction != null && !transaction.isActive())
{
transaction.begin();
}
else
isNested = true; //<-- Change
try
{
invocation.proceed();
} catch (final RuntimeException e)
{
if (transaction != null && transaction.isActive() && !isNested)
//<-- Change
{
rollbackTransaction(transaction);
}
throw e;
}
// Success or checked exception:
if (transaction != null && transaction.isActive() && !isNested)
//<-- Change
{
transaction.commit();
}
}
So please come on. Lets get rid of this bug! Thats all nothing more to
see... .
And its totally fools proof and downward compatible (doesnt change current
behavior).
Lets change this! And yes we can!
Cheeeers,
Martin (Kersten),
Germany
2013/8/23 Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <thiag...@gmail.com>
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:45:27 -0300, Martin Kersten <
> martin.kersten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> @Dimitry
>> But using this annotation would introduce a good chance that later in
>> your project you introduce bugs this way. So I would consider @CommitAfter
>> to be a harmful feature. The problem with this transaction behavior it
>> introduces bugs that might happen in so rare circumstances that you always
>> have no
>> chance to reproduce or spot it during debug/testing sessions.
>>
>
> I disagree. @CommitAfter never claimed to implement nested transactions,
> so, if someone expects it with @CommitAfter, they're wrong, not
> @CommitAfter. I agree that its documentation should be more explicit.
>
>
> Is there a reason why there is no @Transactional annotation dealing with
>> this issue like the JPA version does? The link I mentioned earlier
>> provided such implementation. Would be create if Tapestry 5.4 might ship
>> along with this. In the end I would only need this behavior that if a
>> transaction is
>> present the 'inner transaction' would be ignored and only the outter
>> transaction remains handled. So if transaction exists, do nothing.
>>
>
> Because implementing full transaction support, like Spring and EJB do, is
> a very complex to do. Have you ever taken a look at spring-tx code? I did.
> It's quite large. Tapestry-IoC never promised to implement a full
> transaction manager. Just tapestry-hibernate and tapestry-jpa that provide
> simple transaction management because both Hibernate and JPA require
> changes to the database to be done inside a transaction.
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> users-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
